In re Robert R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Robert R.

238 A.D.2d 426, 657 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3851

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 426 (In re Robert R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Robert R., 238 A.D.2d 426, 657 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a juvenile de[427]*427linquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.), dated May 16, 1996, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated April 25,1996, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, petit larceny, and criminal facilitation in the fourth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him with the New York State Division for Youth for up to 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presenting agency (see, Matter of Stafford B., 187 AD2d 649, 650), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the fact-finding order. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of facts, which saw and heard the witnesses (cf., People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see generally, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88; see also, Matter of Jermaine T., 150 AD2d 702; Matter of Michael D., 109 AD2d 633, affd 66 NY2d 843). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the finding of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a juvenile de[427]*427linquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.), dated May 16, 1996, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated April 25,1996, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, petit larceny, and criminal facilitation in the fourth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him with the New York State Division for Youth for up to 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presenting agency (see, Matter of Stafford B., 187 AD2d 649, 650), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the fact-finding order. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of facts, which saw and heard the witnesses (cf., People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see generally, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88; see also, Matter of Jermaine T., 150 AD2d 702; Matter of Michael D., 109 AD2d 633, affd 66 NY2d 843). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the finding of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 426, 657 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-robert-r-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack